Lefty Internal Politics: How to Talk About This Stuff?

[Varysblackfyre321]

29 minutes ago, Secretary of Eumenes said:

People are stupid and impressionable - especially children. And yes, I think they should be given reasonable discouragement from seeing something novel and thinking they identify as the same. Especially in a climate where their parents or medical providers might think that said (reasonable!) challenges to their newfound identification could lead to the child's death if they don't wholesale support their new gender identity. W

Yeah this how some  libs will get us back to sodomy laws and anti-cross dressing.

Gotta protect the kids from potential social contagion.

“I personally don’t mind the gays and trans—but keep it private in the bedroom.”

Oh and laws against lgbt propaganda.

Edited May 26 by Varysblackfyre321
Specificcation; noting

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah this how libs will get us back to sodomy laws and anti-cross dressing back on the menu to protect the kids from potential social contagion.

“I don’t personally don’t mind the gays and trans—but keep it private in the bedroom.”

There was less pushback against transness and non-binaryness five years ago than there is now. Making something a political standard invites pushback. Making it about something wherein there -are- legitimate concerns regarding the (VERY DIFFICULT) treatment of children is just fucking stupid. 

In case I haven't made it clear; I don't actually care what any of you do with your children. What disturbs me most is that I see a lot of very excited people who don't seem to understand that they're in a political salient (one that concerns me) and are too Pride Blind to see it. I don't like being attached to salients unless I'm defending Kursk in 1943, and even then I'd rather be anywhere else on the line. 

My sister and my brother-in-law let me stay with them for the better part of a year when my Nice Liberal Always-On-The-Right-Side-of-Twitter-Law gay roommates decided they didn't need me no more and sent my ass packing back to Indianastan just weeks after reaffirming that we were cool for another year of coexistence. My brother-in-law and sister are Trump voting conservatives, and if their son started sucking dick I don't have a single doubt in my mind that they'd have his back. But they get nervous when stuff like this comes up. Influencing stuff. I understand that, and I cannot condemn them for it no matter how wildly people who are too enthusiastic about their in-group doomsay about the future. 

DeSantis is taking advantage of people who just don't want their children to be harmed by stuff that's new and they're unfamiliar with, and obviously a fair amount of bigots are tagging along. 

I do not see the social utility in continuing to antagonize these people about an issue that adds nothing to the liberalization of this country. I see it like a debuff, to use videogame parlance. A debuff for me (making conservatives madder at Trans people who don't get to quietly pass or live in states that protect us) and for the cause as a whole by, again, making them madder at what they see as weirdness and impression on their child rearing. Like a Helm of Cutting Off One's Nose to Spite One's Face

 

Again, again, again. Please understand that this is a politics thread. I'm filtering all of this through a political lens. And what makes California and Oregon parents warm and gooey inside when it comes to social construction don't play so well where I live. 

And yes, liberals antagonize conservatives about this. In the last few months I have seen more sneering references to conservative panic about Drag Queen Hour than I have to the fact that they're all tacitly complicit in an attempted overthrow of my government. THAT is where my irritation really comes from. You're all wasting your time with this horseshit social tinkering when the Reichstag is burning. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

19 minutes ago, Secretary of Eumenes said:

There was less pushback against transness and non-binaryness five years ago than there is now.

Because most of the attention before then was mainly on the gays.

Cultural Conservatives need a whipping dog.

Quote

On a Saturday afternoon in August 2019, South Dakota Republican state Rep. Fred Deutsch sent an email to 18 anti-trans activists, doctors, and lawyers with the text of a bill he planned to introduce that would make it a felony for doctors to give transgender children under 16 gender-affirming medical care. “I have no doubt this will be an uphill battle when we get to session,” Deutsch warned the group. “As always, please do not share this with the media. The longer we can fly under the radar the better.”

The message was one in a trove of emails obtained by Mother Jones between Deutsch and representatives of a network of activists and organizations at the forefront of the anti-trans movement. They show the degree to which these activists shaped Deutsch’s repressive legislation, a version of which was signed into law in February, and the tactics, alliances, and goals of a movement that has sought to foist their agenda on a national scale. 

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/03/anti-trans-transgender-health-care-ban-legislation-bill-minors-children-lgbtq/

Are you seriously naive to think if liberals and left just stopped talking about transgender people  that suddenly conservatives  would back off?

Edited May 26 by Varysblackfyre321

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, sologdin said:

Maybe they just want the kid to develop on their own. 

is that something that happens? isn't consciousness by contrast a product of labor? the right knows this, which is why they want to capture school boards, indoctrinate through religion, and control mass culture. video games cause savagery, not guns, they argue.  ban books, not firearms, they contend. the blade itself does not incite to deeds of violence, but rather rock music and role playing games.  to let them develop on their own is to allow the right to groom them into little stormtroopers.

Liberals and what may constitute the left in America have really dropped the ball on local positions of power like in school boards.

Say what you will about the cultural right they’ve understanding on the seemingly tedious, or cringe action needed to obtain and preserve power.

There’s a tendency for liberals in America  to think their morals edicts would be arrived inevitably if they just be quiet.

This strategy far as I know  has never worked and just given more time for awful people to do more awful things.

 

[Jace, Extat]

That's not what I've written. I don't want liberals to abandon Trans interests. 

MY interests are Trans interests. 

I simply prefer my sub-grouping not be used as a cannon fodder cudgel by faddish political peacockers... from their own safe and Democratic bastions, of course.

That I'm supposed to be grateful for such ill-use is infuriating. That I'm slighted for expressing as much is crushing.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

9 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

don’t care if he’s paying random black trans women to piss on him so long as he’s politically neutered I’m fine with his existence.

You recognize it’s less important to change the woke’s mind as it is to mitigate their threat level to movements you support. I am just using the same logic in terms of dealing with people who’d more threat to democracy and human rights.

My point was 1) I don't know if he really is neutralized, because celebrity was never his goal, it was fascist influence, and for all I know he could still be working to that effect, just out of the spotlight once he got enough initial attention 2) I would love it if he were neutralized, but assuming he is, I'd wager his being found liable for Charlottesville murder was more of a factor than some rando punching him on the street. 

9 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The rise of Anti-fa  because people got sick of the proud boys and right wing militia  murdering and brutalizing, terrorizing  their left wing and progressives opposition.

Completely understandable. Terrorists are fucking disgusting. But it's also part of their provocation.

9 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah  you can just say fascists.

They’re anti-anti fascist.

We can only say fascist if we're taking anyone who leans right and rounding up all the way to fascist. I said earlier that I don't like certain cultural structures and incentives that make panic politics more likely on the left...but that's nothing compared to the structures and incentives that do so on the right. These were more or less typical small town people driven crazy by fear by what they were watching on TV--and they turned into a suspicious mob. As far as I know no one actually got hurt by these watchdog efforts, but it revealed the potential for such ugliness. Just like the students at Evergreen College back in 2017. And in both instances, it was people driven into a panicked mobilization, largely driven by the media they consumed (but also the teachers in the case of the students). Certainly what those communities did helped the larger aims of the fascists, but it was not in any way conscious or intentional. They got swept up, and so ultimately were played like fiddles, like many uncritically reactive people can be in social movements.

Also, re: the name anti-fa, I did try once to get my mom to at least admit that the intention of combating fascism was a good thing, and she just scoffed. "That's the story they tell, doesn't make it so." And to be fair, I get that reasoning, because it's the same way that I look at the name "Pro-Life." It's convenient self-branding for a certain group, nothing more. I don't take the meaning of "Pro-Life" at face value, and conservatives don't take "Anti-fa" as face value anti-fascism. 

And if we're in the practice of attacking people who might be/probably are/hey what's the difference there all fascists, well, then I wouldn't say they're meaningfully anti-fascist.

Perhaps more germane: as I mentioned in the OP, amorphous collectives are not one thing. So "anti-fascist" is the banner and the sentiment that binds Antifa, but different people can have different conceptions and standards of what they're combatting, and use different tactics, all under the same banner.

9 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

How much did good did the stone wall rioters do  for gay rights in comparison to the amount of good done through years of civil request and cooing for harmony by the log cabin republicans?

Everyone wants to think that their movement is the next Stonewall. I don't think the circumstances are remotely comparable, but who's to say? Maybe it is as you're suggesting. But I'd like to zero in on that sentiment of feeling good when there is a forceful demonstration of moral clarity. That is a path to more and more uncritical certainty, which is a dangerous path. So, regardless of how history ultimately proves the Antifa actions to be, it would be good for those people to at least contemplate the possibility that their actions are not the next Stonewall, and are more like the inversion of those scared conservative communities starting makeshift watchdog groups in response to Antifa. Just scared people getting swept up in the madness of the time, and ultimately being played. If they gave that alternative consideration, then maybe their actions could be more deliberate and strategic than rash and reactive.

Edited May 26 by Phylum of Alexandria

[Phylum of Alexandria]

14 hours ago, Secretary of Eumenes said:

No, the Republicans are not in the right with their Don't Say Gay stuff and banning books. It's fucking appalling. 

But that doesn't make you right either just because you're bola-ing to the opposite.  

 

In a word: Overcorrection.

It's unfortunately very common to finally correct against something wrong, and then try to push as far as possible in another direction. Obviously the oppositional dynamic of the culture war is part of why this is, but I also think it has to do with certain communities holding only one value in their heads, and then wanting to maximize that value with no thought as to possible unforeseen costs or ramifications. 

The right goes absolutely insane with overcorrection, but most of what I'm criticizing in the OP could be construed as the ways in which very understandable aims and concerns on the left are pushed to absurd extremes.

 

Edit: "Blinkered maximalism" is probably more accurate, but it doesn't roll off the tongue quite so well.

Edited May 26 by Phylum of Alexandria
of the culture "war"

[sologdin]

role models are important. 

i wasn't really thinking of it that specifically.  more that remaining silent on questions of sex and gender, which are products similar to race ideology, allows the rhetorical void to be filled by whatever quasi-religious construction the right wants to put on them, simply by virtue of their seeming to sell uncontroverted coherence. this would thus be quite a bit less direct than role models, more substratum.

 

hey what's the difference there all fascists, well, then I wouldn't say they're meaningfully anti-fascist.

yeah, this reaches its nadir in the stalinists declaring that social dems are basically fascists because they disagree with comintern policy preferences.

[Jace, Extat]

1 hour ago, sologdin said:

role models are important. 

i wasn't really thinking of it that specifically.  more that remaining silent on questions of sex and gender, which are products similar to race ideology, allows the rhetorical void to be filled by whatever quasi-religious construction the right wants to put on them, simply by virtue of their seeming to sell uncontroverted coherence. this would thus be quite a bit less direct than role models, more substratum.

 

I feel what you're saying; I am not at all suggesting that anybody of any community should just shut up and take what R's let them have. It's just this particular method of... activism... doesn't make sense to me.

You can be on the correct side of an issue and still take it too far. <And not even necessarily *dangerously* far> 

Like, no kid is gonna get read a picture book by a Drag Queen and then get their shit cut off- that's not how it works. But c'mon, now! C'mon, now! I fucking see you, people. A fuckload of librarians didn't all wake up one day with God telling them Drag Queen Story Hour will get more kids reading or turning into gay frogs or whatever conservatives think is going on... 

But gimme a break. I don't have to be grateful that Trans-adjacent actors are being used as shock troops in a cirque-du-soleils trolling campaign just because a bunch of affluent whites learned about non-binariness in their thirties and forties. 

[Crixus]

7 hours ago, Secretary of Eumenes said:

That's not what I've written. I don't want liberals to abandon Trans interests. 

MY interests are Trans interests. 

I simply prefer my sub-grouping not be used as a cannon fodder cudgel by faddish political peacockers... from their own safe and Democratic bastions, of course.

That I'm supposed to be grateful for such ill-use is infuriating. That I'm slighted for expressing as much is crushing.

The fact that you, a trans woman, have to explain and defend your views about this very topic to someone (who then appears to lecture you on the right way to support transpeople) should be shocking, but sadly it isn't. I think someone else made a point about allies in this thread earlier, and how they often tend to be the loudest and most grandstanding voices out there. A bit ironic, as it falls under the 'lived experience' aspect that was also discussed in this thread. Having your identity constantly politicised and used isn't exactly something that inspires gratitude, I agree. 

[sologdin]

should be shocking, but sadly it isn't.

this touches on my pet internal leftwing grievance: on what warrant rests the conclusion that one need not educate those whose circumstances have prevented them from understanding a phenomenon claimed to be rooted in irreducible experience? whence comes the corollary entitlement that one need not argue and persuade as part of a demand.

 

You can be on the correct side of an issue and still take it too far. 

that can be a tactical question, or a moral one. on  the one hand, it makes sense to listen to the objections and correct course.

on the other hand, i kinda regard DQSH as fairly tame. a consistent moral doctrine might accordingly require us to take it farther. clothing, in itself, as long as one has enough of it, is a trifle--the picayune question of how much fabric cut in which ways covering which anatomical parcels is a question of parity products, fungible in objective terms, varying through market mechanism with high cross elasticity. if subjective import is attributed to some and not others on the basis of gender ideology, it merely means that it is a serious trifle, fictions piled on top of other fictions, a cascade of hyperreal interactions--but a trifle nevertheless.  it is trifling because the issue that has been created is entirely one-sided; the conservative end of the debate wholly lacks merit and pursues the matter frivolously as a display of animus. they may believe that sex exists, but that's simply because it says so in genesis 1:27.  the offer to extend their unsupported and unsupportable beliefs over the entire world is respectfully declined. as reductio ad absurdum of their objection to DQSH, we note that it's probably child abuse to extend these woeful beliefs over t their own children. i envision therefore a child welfare agency in the atheist future that dispossesses parents of their children for juvenile infliction of religious belief. 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

3 hours ago, Secretary of Eumenes said:

I don't have to be grateful that Trans-adjacent actors are being used as shock troops in a cirque-du-soleils trolling campaign just because a bunch of affluent whites learned about non-binariness in their thirties and forties. 

Ha! Love that line. 

It's definitely rooted in good intentions, but treated like Americans treat garlic and hops.

[Jace, Extat]

1 hour ago, sologdin said:

should be shocking, but sadly it isn't.

this touches on my pet internal leftwing grievance: on what warrant rests the conclusion that one need not educate those whose circumstances have prevented them from understanding a phenomenon claimed to be rooted in irreducible experience? whence comes the corollary entitlement that one need not argue and persuade as part of a demand.

 

You can be on the correct side of an issue and still take it too far. 

that can be a tactical question, or a moral one. on  the one hand, it makes sense to listen to the objections and correct course.

on the other hand, i kinda regard DQSH as fairly tame. a consistent moral doctrine might accordingly require us to take it farther. clothing, in itself, as long as one has enough of it, is a trifle--the picayune question of how much fabric cut in which ways covering which anatomical parcels is a question of parity products, fungible in objective terms, varying through market mechanism with high cross elasticity. if subjective import is attributed to some and not others on the basis of gender ideology, it merely means that it is a serious trifle, fictions piled on top of other fictions, a cascade of hyperreal interactions--but a trifle nevertheless.  it is trifling because the issue that has been created is entirely one-sided; the conservative end of the debate wholly lacks merit and pursues the matter frivolously as a display of animus. they may believe that sex exists, but that's simply because it says so in genesis 1:27.  the offer to extend their unsupported and unsupportable beliefs over the entire world is respectfully declined. as reductio ad absurdum of their objection to DQSH, we note that it's probably child abuse to extend these woeful beliefs over t their own children. i envision therefore a child welfare agency in the atheist future that dispossesses parents of their children for juvenile infliction of religious belief. 

As a product of "child welfare" attention, I'll take the ignoramus and even dangerous parent in a heartbeat. 

But that's just me.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

10 minutes ago, Secretary of Eumenes said:

As a product of "child welfare" attention, I'll take the ignoramus and even dangerous parent in a heartbeat. 

But that's just me.

Re: why are people suddenly doing DQSH, one thing to keep in mind is that Rupaul's Drag Race became a huge phenomenon since maybe 2010, so the general notion of checking out drag entertainment--and perhaps especially the desire to see a specific queen made famous on the show--no doubt inspired normie communities to have these types of local events.

I don't doubt that some people have the social programming stuff in mind, but there's also a more natural and innocuous reason for the emergence of the fad.

[Varysblackfyre321]

11 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

My point was 1) I don't know if he really is neutralized, because celebrity was never his goal,

Far as I can tell He is. 
The nature of his activism makes Celebrity is a necessary conduit for him to actually help move the pendulum towards his preferred direction.

11 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

2) I would love it if he were neutralized, but assuming he is, I'd wager his being found liable for Charlottesville murder was more of a factor than some rando punching him on the street

Yeah like he can’t bank roll far right media figures, be the power behind the scenes if you will . He’s too notorious to even land a political aid job like Milo quietly directing/advising  people in office or in a position to do what the federalist society does and Shepard and ideologically mold people likely to come in political power.

If you can point to how he’s still politically relevant/influencal as he was before Please tell me.
I’m willing to compromise and say taking Nazis money and harassing them isn’t bad.

11 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

We can only say fascist if we're taking anyone who leans right and rounding up all the way to fascist. I

Or if we’re talking about people who’re anti-anti fascist.

The double negatives make fascist.

But I’ll admit I may be needlessly pedantic when the spirit of your statement was groups that are actively hostile and may fight Antifa.

That doesn’t automatically mean fascists. The proud boys are fascists and far right militants tend to be though.

11 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

These were more or less typical small town people driven crazy by fear by what they were watching on TV--and they turned into a suspicious mob

I’m sorry I feel you’re giving into the lie/stereotype of political extremists on the right being just some haples country bumpkins.

11 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Everyone wants to think that their movement is the next Stonewall. I don't think the circumstances are remotely comparable,

Well damn. I guess democracy isn’t under and conservatives taking back power in America won’t be particularly bad for anyone’s rights nor economic prosperity.

What exactly is the immediate common goal that’d justify the little coalition thing you’ve insisted needs to happen?

Because I assumed you and I were of the similar mind on the looming threat of fascism in America and thinking it’s better that people with an interest in social Justice causes, and preserving Democracy put aside some ideological gripes and focus on doing practical actions within their main interests/goals. 
 

11 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Maybe it is as you're suggesting. But I'd like to zero in on that sentiment of feeling good when there is a forceful demonstration of moral clarity.

Every political right you currently have have was paid for with blood.

Rights are not given they are taken. 
 

12 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

That is a path to more and more uncritical certainty, which is a dangerous path. So, regardless of how history ultimately proves the Antifa actions to be, it would be good for those people to at least contemplate the possibility that their actions are not the 

 The next black panthers.

The next Huey Newman.

The next Suffragette(it’s interesting to learn how they blew shit up).

The next John Brown.

The next Polly Jackson.

Its a shame in America pseudo aristocrats who desired more local control in their are lauded as heroes for staging an illegal secession movement but any movement based on social Justice must characterized as pacifist and docile.

Anyway it’s not my personal jam, too lazy and cowardly to get into fist fights with proud boys who’d happily kill me but for the sake of unity for a grand ole coalition I’m not going to wring my finger at an Antifa for scaring the cons.

[Varysblackfyre321]

19 hours ago, Secretary of Eumenes said:

That's not what I've written. I don't want liberals to abandon Trans interests. 

Hmm—please take a deep breath calm down and re-read what I’ve stated carefully. I know my  grammar sucks (forgive me I have  sausage fingers and type on my phone), but it should be clear I didn’t say you wanted to abandon trans interests.

I insinuated your proposal of combating transphobia was patently naive and worth severe mockery. 
Please if you’re going to be offended by me be offended for the right reasons. 

11 hours ago, Crixus said:

The fact that you, a trans woman, have to explain and defend your views about this very topic to someone (who then appears to lecture you on the right way to support transpeople) should be shocking, but sadly it isn't.

I’m not into liberal identity politics If a person has a bad take I’ll say it’s a bad take regardless of what group they come from

I’ve seen gay people argue that they shouldn’t be allowed to serve in the military, or get married and even use progressive sounding verbiage to justify the continuation of blatant systematic homophobia.

I say they’re wrong and they’re going to help get more gay people hurt and killed.
I’ve seen  black people say the prevalence homosexuality is something white people are injecting into black communities to make them docile and they have return to traditional family values to fight off white supremacy.

I say they’re wrong and say their political advocacy would just help get more black people and killed.

I’d say to them directly? Would you? Oh would uncomfortably go silent if you were around lol?

Sorry I’m rambling,  anyway if a trans person even a lib says it’s not bigoted for parents to fear drag queen story hour or any queer friendly media turning their kids gay I’m not giving them better treatment than a cis-het con.

It does amuse me a bit when people who fancy themselves as more the “fuck your feelings” “I’m anti-pc” invoke their identity when arguing with me.

An example I’m reminded(god why do I keep saying that it’s annoying), of John Doyle, a YouTube con, self-proffesed authoritarian, in a video went over gay acceptance was propelled by activism in media. He mocked people with more liberal tendencies for thinking that people just had an epiphany on gay rights(they just love each other? Wow I didn’t know that)  and pointed to the activism necessary to shift the public sentiment. Like he pointed to a manual which said make queer characters sympathetic and pretty in media and treated it as scandalous. I thought he was straw-manning people.

But not entirely perhaps.

Edited May 27 by Varysblackfyre321
An added rant Lol.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

@Varysblackfyre321, Hmmm, I feel like on almost every point here, you were not really reading what I was laying down. Some of that might be in how I wrote it, but I did notice that several times, the answers or relevant material to what you're bringing up were already in my earlier comment, but you didn't quote those bits.

59 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

If you can point to how he’s still politically relevant/influencal as he was before Please tell me.
I’m willing to compromise and say taking Nazis money and harassing them isn’t bad.

This was probably how I worded it, but when I wrote "I don't know if" he was neutralized, I was literally saying I don't know. I did express some doubt, but it's not like I'm willing to place a bet on it or anything.

The other relevant part was that, if he was neutralized, it's more likely due to notoriety and legal consequences following Charlottesville than anything resulting from the vigilante schtick of individuals acting under the amorphous antifa hashtag.

I agree with anti-fascist sentiment, but I am also "for life," definitely not con-life. I don't think the catch-all brands of certain actors embody the general concepts, as I pointed out in my last comment. Not only is antifa just a name, it's not even an organized group with a shared mission, just a shared sentiment. As such, I can't be for or against the movement, only individual actions. But I do think that such a movement is a mess for controlling the message.

So when I said "everyone wants their movement to be Stonewall," I don't mean collective efforts against the fascist forces around us. I meant specifically the amorphous vigilante effort known as #antifa. Stonewall was a group of people occupying a certain space, with clear and immediate goals. #antifa is at best a well intentioned morass, providing fodder for easy right wing propaganda wins. I am willing to accept that I am not a fortune teller, and could be proven wrong about #Antifa's ultimate importance and impact.

But note that for my passage about taking a second to question certainty, the choice wasn't between taking action and putting your tail between your legs. It was between rash reaction and cold strategy. If you take action, even if it's bold and aggressive action, it should be done after careful consideration and planning, not because you're in a panic, or because the ventures into the streets make everyone feel like Captain America issue 1.

 

Edited May 27 by Phylum of Alexandria

[Varysblackfyre321]

24 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

This was probably how I worded it, but when I wrote "I don't know if" he was neutralized, I was literally saying I don't know. I did express some doubt, but it's not like I'm willing to place a bet on it or anything.

I did see that you said you didn’t know. I think I do.

the evidence shows it’s a yes in my eyes.

24 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

The other relevant part was that, if he was neutralized, it's more likely due to notoriety and legal consequences following Charlottesville than anything resulting from the vigilante schtick of individuals acting under the amorphous antifa hashtag.

Was it not clear I acknowledged that possibility?

I’m fine with Nazis getting harassed and sued for their bad acts both are fine I’m willing to praise both for the good intent and possible good consequence

24 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Not only is antifa just a name, it's not even an organized group with a shared mission, just a shared sentiment.

Yep it’s a movement.

24 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

So when I said "everyone wants their movement to be Stonewall," I don't mean collective efforts against the fascist forces around us. I meant specifically the amorphous vigilante effort known as #antifa.

Point taken.

I think there’s a place for militant activism just as there is for more civil advocacy.

I’m not privy to hand wring  people over having a bake sale or dance party to support the campaign for a progressive to get on a state Supreme Court justice  

I’m not privy to hand wring a local left wing militia type group for showing up to defend blm protesters or pride parades from right wing thugs who’d come around.

 

Maybe both will prove in time to be ultimately pointless.

Both should be treated as valuable. Trying to lampoon either as pointless/counterproductive   just seems like cutting one’s foot in a race to me. 

24 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

But note that for my passage about taking a second to question certainty, the choice wasn't between taking action and putting your tail between your legs. It was between rash reaction and cold strategy. If you take action, even if it's bold and aggressive action, it should be done after careful consideration and planning, not because you're in a panic, or because the ventures into the streets make everyone feel like Captain America issue 1.

Of course, of course totally agree action shouldn’t just be taken for action’s sake. 

I’ll support an Antifa so long as their militancy has the chance of being constructive.

 

Edited May 27 by Varysblackfyre321

[Zorral]

There is no such thing as an antifa -- it's an entirely a creation by the fascist mob mind because They had to have a demon so They made up one, and people who should by now know a whole lot better keep buying it.

Edited May 27 by Zorral

[Varysblackfyre321]

6 minutes ago, Zorral said:

There is no such thing as an antifa -- it's an entirely a creation by the fascist mob mind because They had to have a demon so They made up one, and people who should by now know a whole lot better keep buying it.

Do you seriously need me to refrence some antifa  groups Twitter handIes or something?

I don’t see the point in denying a more militant movement  of progressive and left-wing activists exists or treating it as the worst thing ever,